Upload
kristian-barnett
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Do incentive payments encourage innovation? A meta-analysis study
Presented by:Zahra Lotfi
Friedrich Schiller University
MAER-NET 2015
2
Outline
• Introduction
• Literature
• Method
• Results
• Conclusion
3
Introduction• Human capital has been considered as a key resource
in innovative organizations. Successful innovative organizations should know how to reward people (Gupta and Singhal, 1993).
• Reward systems are effective in fostering innovation: long-term perspective, autonomy and motivation to take risks.
• Which type of reward system? Variable payments?
• In variable payment, the payment of individuals are linked to firm performance, like bonus and stock option.
4
• Previous studies about the effect of variable pay on innovation:variable payments are proper stimulant for innovation activity create long-term commitment
variable payment can not encourage innovation focus on short term, reduce intrinsic motivation, autonomy and freedom.
• A systematic overview of studies that examine the relation between variable payments and innovation is needed
• Meta-analysis: summerizes and integrates the results of emprical studies
Introduction
5
Positive impact of variable compensation on innovation:
• Variable monetary reward considered as an effective motivational tool for improving innovation.
• Apply principal-agent theory: To align the interests of agents and principals, the agents‘ payment linked to firm performance.
• Regarding innovation activities, the payments of agents should be linked to innovation activity of firms rather than firm‘s financial performance (Balkin et al., 2000)
• Long-term payment such as stock option has been found to be effective in promoting innovation (Francis et al., 2010; Lerner and Wulf, 2007; Yanadori and Marler, 2006)
Literature
6
Positive impact of variable compensation on innovation:
• Long-term pay can encourage employees to focus on the firm‘s long-term success (Chang et al. 2015).
• Long-term pay decrease the fear of failure in executives (Francis et al., 2010).
• Stock option can prevent myopic decision of CEOs (Sanders and Hambrick 2007).
• Stock option can encourage CEOs to take risky decisions (Sanders and Hambrick 2007).
Literature
7
Negative impact of variable compensation on innovation:
• Variable compensation negatively affect innovation.
• Monetary compensation can undermine intrinsic motivation of people in interesting tasks (e.g. Amabile, 1998; Fehr and Gächter, 2001; Frey and Oberholzer-Gee, 1997; Lepper et al., 1973).
• When intrinsically motivated people are paid stock options or bonus for doing interesting tasks like innovation, they might lose their interests in what they are doing and only focus on the reward.
• When monetary rewards are perceived as controlling, people are under pressure to achieve specific goals so their intrinsic motivation get reduced in interesting tasks.
Literature
8
Negative impact of variable compensation on innovation:
• Multitasking problem Individuals focus on the tasks that increase firm’s share price and value in short run in order to increase their payment, so it’s unlikely that they invest in innovation activity.
• Top managers focus on the tasks that enhance the firm’s profit in the shortest way they can impress boards and increase their payment
• R&D employees increase only the numbers of patents to ehance their payment without considering the quality of innovation.
Literature
9
• Meta-regression analysis can review all existing empirical studies comprehensively and by aggregating the results of various studies it can provide more authentic estimates than the individual study.
• We considered previous empirical studies that examine the relation between variable pay and innovation.
• We searched Google scholar, Elsevier, Business Source Premier and Jstor databases for the combination of the specific keywords.
• Variable payment of managers, employees and R&D heads are included.
• Compensation: long-term and short-term compensation; Innovation: patent, R&D intensity and innovation performance
• The final sample consists of 43 studies that report 301 estimation of compensation-innovation relationship.
Method
10
• Meta-regression model:
Dependent variable: Effect size measures the strength and direction of compensation-innovation link; Partial correlation
Independent variable: effect size standard error
Method
dft
tr
2
1
)1( 22
df
rVr
𝑆𝐸 𝑖=√𝑉 𝑟
11
Reporting Bias analysis:• Reporting bias: the propensity in reporting statistically significant
results.
• Basically authors and journals prefer to publish significant results and results which are more in accord with theories (Card and Krueger, 1995)
• Reporting bias can be considered as a threat to an empirical inference and validity of policy implication that are drawn from empirical results.
• Meta-regression analysis (MRA) helps us to detect the publication bias and identify the precision effect regardless of bias (Stanley, 2008).
• Reporting bias can be distinguished by two tests: Funnel plot test and FAT test (Egger et al., 1997; Stanley and Doucouliagos, 2010)
Method
12
• Funnel Plot Test:
010
2030
4050
1/st
d_r
-.5 0 .5 1r
Method
13
FAT test (funnel asymmetry testing)
H0: reporting bias
H0: genuine effect between compensation and innovation that adjusted for reporting bias• Weighted Least Square (WLS) has been applied• Fixed effect and Random effect models• Fixed effect model: the weight assigned to each study is inverse of
effect size variance (within-studies variance)• Random effect model: weigh each study by inverse of effect size
variance (within-studies variance and between-studies variance)
Method
14
FAT test:
𝑡𝑖=𝛽1+𝛽0(1 /𝑆𝐸𝑖)+𝑒𝑖
FAT Test
Dependent variable: t-statistics (1) (2)
Sub-effect, fixed effect
Sub-effect, random-effect
Precision 0.072***(3.41)
0.07***(4.97)
Constant (Reporting bias)-0.46(-0.64)
-0.410(-1.14)
Number of observation 301 301
R-squared 0.037 0.073
Results
15
FAT test:
Table . FAT-PET-MAR Test
Dependent variable: t-statistics (1) (2)
US studies, fixed effect
Non US studies, fixed effect
Percision 0.08** 0.054*
(3.01) (2.02)
Constant (Reporting bias) -0.7 0. 41
(-0.80) (0.48)
Number of observation 233 68
R-squared 0.07 0.12
Results
16
Moderator Variables:– Theoretical aspect– Publication outlet : Journal, type of journal, impact factor of
Journal, publication year– Sample characteristics: US firms or non US firms, type of
industry, compensation of different groups – Methodological aspect: Methods of analysis, industry fixed
effect, time period fixed effect and time-lag effects– Data: Database, Types of data– Control variables: innovation specifications, compensation
specifications, time period of sample, Firm characteristics, CEO characteristics
Method
17
Dependent Variable: t-statistics
Specific Model Input-based measure of innovation
Output-based measureof innovation
precision 0.122***(5.14) 0.391***(4.25) -----
Crowding-out Theory 2.64*** (4.49) 2.612(0.57) 4.62 (1.60)
Finance -2.6*** (-3.51) -4.505 (-1.72) 1.66 (0.99)
Working paper -2.46*** (-3.56) -2.3 (-0.54) -----
Employees -2.24*(-2.48) 6.151 (0.45) 1.075 (0.27)
Cross section 1.639** (2.69) ----- -----
Innovation performance -3.246* (-3.14) ----- -----
Stock option ----- -2.683 (-1.35) -2.844***(-5.13)
Stock 1.945** (2.64) -0.87 (-0.58) 4.525*** (8.12)
Bonus ----- -3.338* (-2.15) -----
Constant -0.233 (-0.33) 246.3 (0.39) -509.8 (-1.34)
N.observation 273 113 128
18
• No evidence of publication bias can be found among the selected studies.
• There is positive relationship between incentive pay and innovation; However this association is weak.
• The variation in estimated association between compensation and innovation across studies is due to differences in some study characteristics.
• The variable compensation are more effective in managers rather than employees.
• The way innovation and compensation are measured affect the compensation-innovation link.
• There are differences in the effect of short and long-term compensation on input and output-based measure of innovation.
Conclusions
19
Thanks for your attention!
20
21